Kogelberg IMP - 2nd SH meeting Report.pdf - Anchor Environmental

More documents

Recommendations

Info

question marks over the no take zones. The aim is to agree on the setting aside of 20% of the coastline as no take zones so that resources can be sustained from within the MPA. Locals will essentially be given “ownership” of certain inshore resources within the MPA, but these will need to be managed in such a way so to ensure that the fishery remains sustainable. Comment 18 – Where did your proposed no take zones come from Response – there was some consensus in the focus group meetings that called for the closure of these areas to exploitation. It was expressed by some stakeholders that “the Betty’s Bay MPA is already established and some fishing activities are restricted there, so why not start there” Comment 19 – I believe these areas have been predetermined. You (AEC) have not been transparent; this process needs to be transparent. I have had many discussions on the beach with certain members of the Betty’s Bay community and they have repeatedly mentioned the closure of the areas proposed in this plan. Response SR – We want to bring the decisions to a local level. That has been a principle aim of this process. We have tried to keep things transparent and will continue to do so. The idea proposed in this plan is an attempt to change scenarios and address issues. It is a creative and innovative way of using the legislation governing MPAs to essentially create a balance between conservation, livelihoods and leisure by allowing for local decision making. We are starting from scratch and now have an opportunity to try something new in South Africa. Zonation will be discussed and negotiated over the next year before anything is proclaimed. Comment 20 – Nobody is against 20% or even 30% of the coast as no take zones, but the issue is where these no take zones will be situated. The fishermen’s needs and issues are the only ones that should be heard and taken into consideration in this regard. Leave decision making in cricket to the cricketers, rugby to the rugby players and fishing to the fishermen! Comment 21 – Who is going to pay for the implementation of this plan The ratepayers Response BC – It will be divided amongst the various authorities. (Marine and Coastal Management, Provincial and municipal) Funds may need to be raised. Comment 22 (Dr Allan Heydorn – Chair of the Kogelberg Marine Working Group (KMWG)) – I have written articles that have appeared in the Newspaper. These articles were not to propose, delineate or assign no take zones but rather to express the importance of no take areas for the recruitment of exploited species. I have a background and many years experience as a marine biologist. There is a strong biological reason for the Betty’s Bay MPA; it is a good recruitment area. The articles were written and published to allow discussion and all comments are welcome and are necessary to come to the best possible long term solution for the Kogelberg. I am happy and grateful that the preparation of the KCIMP is happening as it allows for and facilitates this necessary engagement between stakeholders. Comment 23 – There are still many aspects that need to be explored such as the use of the shore by local anglers, kelp harvesting, and Hawston communities fishing in the Bot estuary.
Comment 24 – Why not use the plan prepared by Colin Attwood and shift the Betty’s Bay MPA East Comment 25 – UNESCO has an obligation to incorporate a core area within the biosphere reserve. This core area is the Betty’s Bay MPA, which is the only area that can be linked to the terrestrial Biosphere Reserve. Key Strategies and Action Plans: The tables of strategies and actions as they appear in the draft KCIMP were presented by Dr. Clark. Comment 26 – AEC have been contracted to work on the Kogelberg Coastal Area. Would the MPA begin and end on the same boundaries were AEC working in a broader area Are the boundaries not arbitrary Response BC – No. In accordance with the Integrated Coastal Management Act the boundaries of the KCIMP (as a municipal coastal programme) should line up with the municipal boundaries. This project was conceived before the Integrated Coastal Management Act was enacted and the boundaries of the Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve were used. The KCIMP will eventually be expanded to incorporate the entire jurisdiction of Overstrand municipality and perhaps the Overberg District. Comment 27 – Will the law enforcement team be in addition to the current teams Response BC – Not necessarily it could be combined with the current teams or be a separate agency or group. What is here now is not working. We could possibly set up a team analogous to the marines. It will be the job of the Kogelberg Coastal Committee to advise government. Comment 28 – Will the municipality have to fund this enforcement team Response BC – Not only the municipality but all agencies will need to work together and coordinate efforts. Portions of the costs will have to be agreed, adopted and funded by different agencies. The Integrated Coastal Management Act has placed responsibilities on the municipality that will require funding. This needs to be a joint effort by government. The KCIMP is highlighting the municipality’s responsibilities under the Integrated Coastal Management Act. Overview of the role and function of the Kogelberg Coastal Committee Ms Karen Tunley of AEC explained the institutional arrangements prescribed by the Integrated Coastal Management Act, and the function and composition of municipal coastal committees. It was proposed that the Kogelberg Coastal Committee (KCC) be convened and designated as the initial municipal coastal committee (to be expanded in future) for the Overstrand Municipality. It was suggested that KCC be comprised of one representative per interest group and all relevant authorities. Interest groups need to identify and organize themselves and can, if needed, form subcommittees to enable effective communication. Forms were distributed to allow for people to propose interest groups and nominate representatives (Appendix 3).
Page 1 and 2: KOGELBERG COAST INTEG GRATED MANAGE
Page 3 and 4: “The Kogelberg coast includes a d
Page 5: Comment 6 - the visitors will drown
Page 9 and 10: Appendix 1 List of stakeholders pre
Page 11: Appendix 2 Power Point Slide Show p
Page 14: Appendix 3 Nomination form distribu

Kogelberg IMP - 2nd SH meeting Report.pdf - Anchor Environmental

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?